 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| People ex rel. K.D., Court of Appeals No. 06CA1916,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the determination that a father, whose parental rights had been terminated, had an emotional illness as defined by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-604(1)(b), where it was shown that the father suffered from a broad range of emotional impairments, as evidenced by his limited range of emotion and affect.
|
|||||
| People v. Carmichael, Court of Appeals No.: 02CA0719,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to advise him that if he went to trial he was subject to sentencing under the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1004, because counsel testified that he explained to defendant that if he received probation he would have to admit to the sexual assault allegations.
|
|||||
| People v. Eirish, Court of Appeals No. 03CA2225,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Search warrant affidavit did not supporting finding of probable cause to search defendant's home because, inter alia, it did not allege that broker, who entered garage to obtain drugs for controlled buy with undercover officer, approached the home or that any criminal activity occurred there.
|
|||||
| People v. Gordon, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0879,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the willful destruction of wildlife statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-6-117(1), and the illegal possession of wildlife statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-6-109(1), each required proof of a fact or facts not required by the other, defendant's convictions of the two offenses did not violate double jeopardy principles.
|
|||||
| People v. Harrison, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2678,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's indeterminate sentence was proper upon conviction for sexual assault on child by one in position of trust because convicted offense was one of offenses enumerated in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1003(5) so that indeterminate sentence was mandatory without need for a sexually violent predator assessment under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-414.5.
|
|||||
| People v. Martinez, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0906,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecution did not need to prove, as an element of the offense of driving without insurance, that an officer requested proof of insurance before defendant could be convicted under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1409(2). Rather, prosecution's burden was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was driving and that he had no insurance.
|
|||||
| People v. Stephenson, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1288,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by proceeding to trial without ordering a second competency examination and hearing under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-111 (2006) because defendant's treating psychiatrist testified that the medications did not impair defendant's ability to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense.
|
|||||
| Reeves v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1764,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-11.7-102 did not list department of corrections penal discipline convictions as sex offenses, summary dismissal of an inmate's complaint against the department was proper as the department did not need to prosecute the inmate's prison sex offenses via the judicial system to reclassify him on the sexual violence scale.
|
|||||
| Rudnick v. Ferguson, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0077,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a negligence case against several physicians under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-101 et seq., was appropriate because the case was moot once there was a deposit of the statutory damages cap under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-114 into a court registry.
|
|||||
| Shams v. Howard, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1936,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In homeowners' suit against a contractor for damages arising from flooding problems in their new home, the trial court erred in denying the contractor's motion to compel arbitration as the arbitration clause in the construction contract survived expiration of the warranty agreement, and the alleged construction defects arose under the contract.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
